STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Muse Spark 1.3

Kimi K3.1 Pro leads Muse Spark 1.3 by 16.9 points on StealthMark, 56.7 to 39.8. It leads on 7 of 9 benchmarks, including Latch, and Muse Spark 1.3 on 2, including Foresight. Kimi K3.1 Pro scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in reflections.

See the difference ↘
All results ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

56.7/100Overall rank 11/53
39.8/100Overall rank 34/53

General Intelligence

53.9/100
38.3/100

Visual Intelligence

62.0/100
42.3/100

Reasoning efficiency

On every task, result quality and reasoning tokens are each compared with all measured models and weighed equally. Each dot is one model.

Single-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens on a single problem

Multi-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens across connected steps, as in agentic workflows

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro
  • Muse Spark 1.3
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Kimi K3.1 Pro scores higher on StealthMark. Muse Spark 1.3 is 2.4× cheaper per output token and runs 2.7× faster in our speed test. Both take about 1M tokens of context.

  • Kimi K3.1 Pro
  • Muse Spark 1.3
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Kimi K3.1 Pro: $10$2 inputMuse Spark 1.3: $4.252.4× cheaper$1.25 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 1MTied1M max outputMuse Spark 1.3: 1MTied
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 117tokens/sMuse Spark 1.3: 3212.7× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Kimi K3.1 Pro: 2.8T104B activeEstimatedMuse Spark 1.3: Not disclosed
Developer
Moonshot AIMeta
Released
23 Oct 20262 Sep 2026
Origin
ChinaUnited States
Input → output
Text, image, video → textText, image, video, audio, PDF → text
Architecture
Post-trained version of Kimi K3, a Mixture-of-Experts modelNot published

Full datasheets, every price and sourceKimi K3.1 Pro ↗Muse Spark 1.3 ↗

Anticipating threats and planning ahead. Collect coins while avoiding ghosts. Ghosts move before the player each turn, and collisions cost a life. 3 levels in sequence, up to 66 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.1/100Rank 10/47

Survived 1 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 315 ptsTurn 20 / 20

Muse Spark 1.3 64.3/100Rank 6/47

Survived 2 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 311 ptsTurn 17 / 20

Points per level

LevelKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
Level 1Second Thoughts
15 ptsOut of lives
26 ptsSurvived
Level 2Pressure Pot
12 ptsOut of lives
10 ptsSurvived
Level 3Hide or Flight
15 ptsSurvived
11 ptsOut of lives

Cooperative planning and learning from experience. Coordinate two robots to push numbered cores onto matching sockets. Pressure plates hold doors open; moving either robot uses one turn. 5 levels in sequence, up to 152 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Kimi K3.1 Pro 81.8/100Rank 8/48

Cleared 5 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 519.8 ptsTurn 31 / 40

Muse Spark 1.3 72.4/100Rank 26/483 of 5 levels

3 of 5 played
Latch: complete playing field
Level 318.8 ptsTurn 32 / 36

Points per level

LevelKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
9.8 ptsCleared
9.8 ptsCleared
Level 3Relay vault
19.2 ptsCleared
18.8 ptsCleared
Level 4Passing bay
18.2 ptsClearedFinished early · 3 beacons left
Pending
Level 5Second thoughts
19.8 ptsCleared
Not played

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

Physics, perspective and recursive reflections, tested together. Explore the test ↗

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

The settled sphere, separate airborne black paint and crimson-before-cyan interaction are supported, with a modest crimson travel overshoot. A shared downward framing displacement remains after accounting for the square canvas. The principal limitation is the reflection system: sparse sphere copies and generic curved bands omit most of the ordered mirror-room structure. Materials receive a small upward revision because bounded bright images and dark bands visibly establish some polish, while soft shading and bulky paint remain separate weaknesses.

Muse Spark 1.3

The paint state is incorrectly and poorly drawn, despite a recognizable sphere-and-paint setup. The oversized sphere, oversized compact paint bodies, and blurred wall and floor images further limit the result. Isolated reflection cues provide very little support for the required repeated virtual rooms, nested spherical imagery or emitter mapping.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
State at 600 ms23.5/256.0/25
Camera and placement10.5/158.5/15
Reflections26.0/1205.5/120
Materials and scale7.0/104.0/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Selfie

Same task instructions

Visual construction and creative interpretation.

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

The transformed reflection, attentive pose and constellation anatomy clearly communicate introspection. Purposeful fine details enrich a coherent composition. Tubular limbs, crowded lower-body overlaps, shallow depth and limited cast lighting keep the overall execution within the competent range.

Muse Spark 1.3

The luminous creature and geometric mirror counterpart communicate self-recognition through a coherent palette and expressive eyes. The transformed reflection is purposeful. Simple oval anatomy, ambiguous reaching-arm construction, shallow spatial staging and limited illumination of nearby surfaces keep the illustration below exceptional execution.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness8.0/108.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/105.0/10
Space & placement6.5/106.5/10
Light & reflections6.5/107.0/10
Purposeful detail7.5/106.5/10
Artistry & character7.0/105.5/10
Materials & effects7.0/106.5/10
Visual integrity7.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

An imagined creature encounters its reflection. The scene tests original character design, visual self-interpretation and the relationship between a subject and its reflected image.

Mona Lisa

Same task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

A coherent, recognizable interpretation with controlled color and readable landscape layers. Replication is limited by the frontal seated construction, elongated facial proportions and oversized, weakly articulated hands. Smooth shading supplies some volume but little of the reference's subtle expression, fabric structure or atmospheric transitions.

Muse Spark 1.3

Dark hair, a restrained smile and overlapping hands suggest Mona Lisa, but replication is weak. The face is markedly elongated, the hands are oval pads with faint finger strokes, and the atmospheric landscape is absent. Soft gradients provide basic volume, while the frontal symmetry, shallow space and sparse clothing detail limit the portrait’s drawing quality.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness5.0/101.0/10
Anatomy & construction5.0/101.5/10
Space & placement5.5/101.5/10
Light & reflections6.0/101.5/10
Purposeful detail5.5/101.0/10
Artistry & character6.0/101.5/10
Materials & effects5.0/101.5/10
Visual integrity6.5/103.0/10

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Beach

Same task instructions

Creativity, perspective and visual beauty.

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

A coherent, playful beach illustration with readable animals, an organized composition and an aligned sunset reflection. Connected silhouettes, sand texture and atmospheric effects demonstrate controlled execution. Simplified joints, flattened foreground viewpoints and inconsistent shadows limit anatomical and spatial credibility.

Muse Spark 1.3

The warm sunset, framing palms and colorful beach accessories create an appealing scene with the requested animals, birds and reflections. Construction remains schematic: the raised hand misses the kite string, and a doglike silhouette hangs above the water without clear support. The sun reflection establishes a focal path, but shadows and materials lack depth. An unexplained horizontal bar crosses the sun.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness8.5/106.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/103.0/10
Space & placement5.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections6.5/106.5/10
Purposeful detail6.5/105.0/10
Artistry & character5.5/103.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/103.0/10
Visual integrity7.5/103.5/10

Benchmark task

A busy shoreline at sunset tests scene composition, animal forms and the relationship between light and water reflections.

Ground Truth

Same task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Muse Spark 1.3

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Same task instructions

Scene composition and interacting subjects.

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

The additional comparisons support retaining the assessment. Readable steering, shaped animal contours and purposeful details coexist with simplified joints, a frontal passenger whose seated weight is weakly conveyed, and limited physical lighting. The angled craft establishes more depth than the riding pose resolves.

Muse Spark 1.3

The raccoon clearly rides on the dog's back, and the dog's paws reach the jet ski controls. Expressive faces and bright colors make the scene appealing. Simplified joints, crowded steering geometry and shallow hull perspective limit construction. The sun has no corresponding water reflection, and the splash shapes convey speed more clearly than convincing displacement.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness7.0/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction5.5/106.5/10
Space & placement6.0/107.0/10
Light & reflections5.5/105.0/10
Purposeful detail7.0/106.5/10
Artistry & character6.0/105.5/10
Materials & effects6.0/106.0/10
Visual integrity7.0/107.5/10

Benchmark task

A jet-ski scene pairs a canine driver with a raccoon passenger. It tests the placement and contact of interacting subjects, along with vehicle construction.

Pelican

Same task instructions

Subject construction and spatial relationships.

The judgment

Kimi K3.1 Pro

A characterful coastal illustration with controlled contours and varied feather, accessory and bicycle detail. Layered scenery and subtle shading enrich the presentation. Soft leg articulation, unresolved riding contacts, shallow depth and generalized lighting limit physical precision.

Muse Spark 1.3

The pelican and bicycle are immediately recognizable, with an expressive face, bold bill and cheerful composition. Both legs connect to the body and reach pedal-like supports, but articulation, saddle support and wing contact with the handlebar remain unclear. Wheel alignment and layering are coherent. Simple landscape shapes, generic shadows and limited material variation constrain the finish.

Score breakdown

CategoryKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.3
Task & likeness8.5/108.5/10
Anatomy & construction7.5/106.0/10
Space & placement6.5/107.0/10
Light & reflections6.5/106.0/10
Purposeful detail7.5/107.0/10
Artistry & character7.5/105.5/10
Materials & effects6.5/106.5/10
Visual integrity7.5/107.0/10

Benchmark task

A cycling pelican tests anatomy, riding posture and contact between the bird and the bicycle.